Independent consideration of preventive detention representations is mandatory under Article 22(5); Advisory Board review cannot substitute government scrutiny.

Article 22(5) requires a detenu's representation against preventive detention to be considered independently on its own merits by the authority competent to revoke or confirm detention. Consideration by the Advisory Board is only an additional safeguard and does not replace the Government's separate constitutional duty. The mode of addressing the representation is immaterial, and the Government cannot rely on the Board's views or proceedings instead of applying its own mind. As the Central Government had not independently considered either representation, the constitutional and statutory safeguard was not complied with, and the continued detention was liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detenu's representation against the detention order and the declaration for extended detention was required to be independently considered by the Central Government, notwithstanding consideration by the detaining authority, declaring authority and the Advisory Board.

Analysis: The governing safeguard under Article 22(5) requires that a detenu's representation be considered on its own merits by the authority competent to revoke or confirm the detention. Consideration by the Advisory Board is an additional safeguard and does not substitute the Government's independent obligation. The mode of address of the representation is immaterial, and the Government cannot rely on the Advisory Board's views or proceedings in place of its own application of mind. Since the record showed that the Central Government had not independently considered either representation at any stage, the statutory and constitutional safeguard was not complied with.

Conclusion: The omission vitiated the continued detention and the detention order was liable to be quashed in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: A detenu's representation against preventive detention must be independently considered by the Government as a constitutional obligation under Article 22(5), and such duty is not discharged by consideration of the same representation by the Advisory Board or by the fact that it was addressed to another authority.

---